Transcript of Oral Argument in OIC v. Favish (Vince Foster FOIA Case)

United States Supreme Court ^ | December 24, 2003 (Dec. 3 transcript)

[AJFavish]

The official transcript of the Supreme Court oral argument from December 3, 2003 in Office of Independent Counsel v. Allan J. Favish (Vince Foster FOIA Case) is now available at the Supreme Court's website at:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html

The transcript is an Acrobat PDF file that is 159 KB. Here is a direct link to it:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/02-954.pdf

Regards,

Allan J. Favish
http://www.allanfavish.com

[Tacis]

Waste of time! Pictures of democrat murders/assassinations are NEVER made publc!

[thoughtomator]

Keep at it, Allan. It is important that the truth be known.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

I appreciate your effort.

Don't have much faith in what's left of our system though.

[Taliesan]

I read the transcript. They will rule against you.

[IncPen]

Whatever the outcome, Allan, your diligence and efforts are much appreciated by long suffering Clinton despisers

I do believe in their hearts the Foster family wants the truth to come out but are beholden to the crimes of Clintonism

Merry Christmas to you, and thank you.

[savedbygrace]

Sure sounds that way to this non-lawyer.

[zeugma]

You can't always tell what the court is going to rule based on oral arguments. I've seen instances where the judges take a very adversarial position at oral argument, and turns out they were, more than anything else, playing devils advovcate to the positions they ultimately took.

Personally, I agree with you, though that they are likely to rule against him, but this court is completely loony toons these days. I thought they'd strike down CFR too.

[Auntie Mame]

Love this part:

"QUESTION: Well, let - let's take a particular item of evidence, I mean, like the - the autopsy report that Mr. Favish claims was - was - was altered, that the word neck was white - whitened out and head was written in instead to - to cover the fact that the bullet exited the neck rather than the head. Now, you know, what - what he and other conspiracy theorists would say is, the fact that five investigations came up with the same conclusion just shows the extent of this - this conspiracy, you know. ... "

And this part's good, too:

"QUESTION: He might have been protecting Newt Gingrich. Did you ever think of that?"

"MR. HAMILTON: I - I beg your pardon?

"QUESTION: Mr. Starr might have been protecting Newt Gingrich. We really - we really don't know.

"(Laughter.)"

I'm curious, did you notice if all the justices har-dee-har-harred at this bit of wittiness?

What a jerk. Who was it, anyway?

[Auntie Mame]

Oh, forgot to include my most important comment:

YOU DID A GREAT JOB!

[Zack Nguyen]

Those questions do not engender any faith at all in our country's institutions. How awful.

[Flashlight]

best of luck. any idea on when the decision will be handed down?

[JudyB1938]

In these days of judges ruling any ole which way, whatever their POLITICAL views are, we are reduced to holding our fingers and praying for intervention by the true "higher power". However, it surely appears our nation is in the same position as the individual who is given over to Satan when obedience to God is ignored.

Thanks, Mr. Favish, once again, for all your efforts in this case. God Knows.

[AJFavish]

any idea on when the decision will be handed down?

anytime between now and the end of June 2004

[Southack]

To brighten up your holidays, let me put this into perspective.

In the corporate world, my little firm gives advice to some major players such as IBM, BellSouth, CSC, and some reasonably-sized banks, among others.

But our comments aren't always welcomed with open arms, and some of my employees have at times been exasperated when perfectly sane advice was given to these big firms, then ignored, followed by the perfectly-predicted disaster.

And over the years I have developed a philosophy about this phenomenon. I have found myself telling my employees, time and time again, that they have a *duty* to report any potential problems that they may foresee, and that they have an *obligation* to communicate their recommended solution...once.

I remind my employees never to fight the client. Report the potential problem, give your potential solution one time, and don't repeat yourself.

This strategy works very well for my industry. We are always on the record as predicting such problems, and we always have offered potential solutions, yet we are never the nags who keep repeating their "solutions" as if that is the only way to do business. In the end, this keeps us in good standing with our clients and keeps us from being seen as fighting the system or the powers that be.

And to me, this is what I see you doing in Court. You've shown a potential problem to the SCOTUS, and you've offered a viable solution. Like most people in positions of power, there is of course no telling if they will take your advice and rule for you or not.

But they are now on notice. Do they want to make a habit of locking up evidence in potential murder trials? The burden will forever be on their consciences if they do, for *you* have alerted them to this problem and even provided them with a solution.

Thus, you've done your duty for your country no matter how this SCOTUS rules.

And that fact should make you content for the rest of your life, in my opinion.

[AJFavish]

I agree with you 100%.

[Yaelle]

Do they want to make a habit of locking up evidence in potential murder trials?

This is it exactly. It's strange how the entire country (world?) is fascinated and intrigued by setting justice to a suspicious death, whether in real life, like Laci Peterson's, or in fiction, as in our TV shows, movies, and novels. Yet a man working in the West Wing of the White House who is suddenly found dead of a gunshot wound under highly suspicious circumstances engenders no diligence in investigating his death?

Allen, you are doing a great job.